Written by Village Voice critic Robert Sietsema, it details the history of the modern restaurant review, and poses the question: In a world where anyone can easily publish an instant online critique of a restaurant, is old-school restaurant criticism dying — or perhaps already dead?

Are the ideas of dining anonymously, of waiting a couple of months for a restaurant to find its feet before subjecting it to a review, of visiting many times before printing an assessment (the rules that we adhere to here at the Denver Post) — are these once-required elements of restaurant reviewing any longer legit? Has knee-jerk feedback and clever snark replaced due diligence and methodical reporting?

If so, at what cost?

Are restaurants themselves at risk of shortchanging their potential in this new environment by putting so much effort into big splashy openings to court positive “media” attention, that they’re ignoring the long-term work that’s required for sustainable quality?

And as restaurants now strive for instant, opening-night buzz — at the potential expense of lasting greatness — are they in danger of cannibalizing their own relevance?

I hope not. The more I go out to dinner, the less impressed I am by glitz and gimmick, and yet, that’s where most new restaurants seem to pile their stock as they chase instant press. It’s hard to blame them, as investors pressure restaurateurs to get P/L statements in the black impossibly quickly, but it does make them feel disposable.